Satyam Sharma wrote:
> On 4/30/07, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> i2o/device.c should be GFP_KERNEL as far as I can tell. It was meant to
>> be that way and the callers appear to all be calling it in sleep capable
>> contexts.
>>
>> aic7xxx_old.c should probably be GFP_KERNEL as
On 4/30/07, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i2o/device.c should be GFP_KERNEL as far as I can tell. It was meant to
be that way and the callers appear to all be calling it in sleep capable
contexts.
aic7xxx_old.c should probably be GFP_KERNEL as ->slave_alloc methods
appear to be able to
> > > > drivers/scsi/aic7xxx_old.c: aic_dev = kmalloc(sizeof(struct
> > > > aic_dev_data), GFP_ATOMIC | GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > drivers/message/i2o/device.c: resblk = kmalloc(buflen + 8, GFP_KERNEL
> > > > | GFP_ATOMIC);
> > > >
> > > > clarification?
> > >
> > > GFP_ATOMIC implies that the
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 04:46:54 -0400 (EDT) "Robert P. J. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 09:40:39 -0400 (EDT) "Robert P. J. Day" <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > i'd always assumed that the type flags of
On 4/30/07, Robert P. J. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> >> > drivers/scsi/aic7xxx_old.c: aic_dev = kmalloc(sizeof(struct
aic_dev_data), GFP_ATOMIC | GFP_KERNEL);
> >> > drivers/message/i2o/device.c: resblk = kmalloc(buflen + 8, GFP_KERNEL
|
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Apr 30 2007 04:46, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >> >
> >> > i'd always assumed that the type flags of GFP_ATOMIC and GFP_KERNEL
> >> > were mutually exclusive when it came to calling kmalloc(), at least
> >> > based on everything i'd read. so i'm
On Apr 30 2007 04:46, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> >
>> > i'd always assumed that the type flags of GFP_ATOMIC and GFP_KERNEL
>> > were mutually exclusive when it came to calling kmalloc(), at least
>> > based on everything i'd read. so i'm not sure how to interpret the
>> > following:
>> >
>> >
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 09:40:39 -0400 (EDT) "Robert P. J. Day" <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > i'd always assumed that the type flags of GFP_ATOMIC and GFP_KERNEL
> > were mutually exclusive when it came to calling kmalloc(), at least
> > based
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 09:40:39 -0400 (EDT) "Robert P. J. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> i'd always assumed that the type flags of GFP_ATOMIC and GFP_KERNEL
> were mutually exclusive when it came to calling kmalloc(), at least
> based on everything i'd read. so i'm not sure how to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > drivers/scsi/aic7xxx_old.c: aic_dev = kmalloc(sizeof(struct
> > > aic_dev_data), GFP_ATOMIC | GFP_KERNEL);
> > > drivers/message/i2o/device.c: resblk = kmalloc(buflen + 8, GFP_KERNEL |
> > > GFP_ATOMIC);
> > >
> > > clarification?
> >
> > oh, i'm
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
drivers/scsi/aic7xxx_old.c: aic_dev = kmalloc(sizeof(struct
aic_dev_data), GFP_ATOMIC | GFP_KERNEL);
drivers/message/i2o/device.c: resblk = kmalloc(buflen + 8, GFP_KERNEL |
GFP_ATOMIC);
clarification?
oh, i'm *aware* of the
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 09:40:39 -0400 (EDT) Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
i'd always assumed that the type flags of GFP_ATOMIC and GFP_KERNEL
were mutually exclusive when it came to calling kmalloc(), at least
based on everything i'd read. so i'm not sure how to interpret the
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 09:40:39 -0400 (EDT) Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
i'd always assumed that the type flags of GFP_ATOMIC and GFP_KERNEL
were mutually exclusive when it came to calling kmalloc(), at least
based on everything
On Apr 30 2007 04:46, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
i'd always assumed that the type flags of GFP_ATOMIC and GFP_KERNEL
were mutually exclusive when it came to calling kmalloc(), at least
based on everything i'd read. so i'm not sure how to interpret the
following:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Apr 30 2007 04:46, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
i'd always assumed that the type flags of GFP_ATOMIC and GFP_KERNEL
were mutually exclusive when it came to calling kmalloc(), at least
based on everything i'd read. so i'm not sure how to
On 4/30/07, Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
drivers/scsi/aic7xxx_old.c: aic_dev = kmalloc(sizeof(struct
aic_dev_data), GFP_ATOMIC | GFP_KERNEL);
drivers/message/i2o/device.c: resblk = kmalloc(buflen + 8, GFP_KERNEL
| GFP_ATOMIC);
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 04:46:54 -0400 (EDT) Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 09:40:39 -0400 (EDT) Robert P. J. Day [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
i'd always assumed that the type flags of GFP_ATOMIC and GFP_KERNEL
drivers/scsi/aic7xxx_old.c: aic_dev = kmalloc(sizeof(struct
aic_dev_data), GFP_ATOMIC | GFP_KERNEL);
drivers/message/i2o/device.c: resblk = kmalloc(buflen + 8, GFP_KERNEL
| GFP_ATOMIC);
clarification?
GFP_ATOMIC implies that the memory comes from the zones
On 4/30/07, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i2o/device.c should be GFP_KERNEL as far as I can tell. It was meant to
be that way and the callers appear to all be calling it in sleep capable
contexts.
aic7xxx_old.c should probably be GFP_KERNEL as -slave_alloc methods
appear to be able to sleep
Satyam Sharma wrote:
On 4/30/07, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i2o/device.c should be GFP_KERNEL as far as I can tell. It was meant to
be that way and the callers appear to all be calling it in sleep capable
contexts.
aic7xxx_old.c should probably be GFP_KERNEL as -slave_alloc methods
> > drivers/scsi/aic7xxx_old.c: aic_dev = kmalloc(sizeof(struct aic_dev_data),
> > GFP_ATOMIC | GFP_KERNEL);
> > drivers/message/i2o/device.c: resblk = kmalloc(buflen + 8, GFP_KERNEL |
> > GFP_ATOMIC);
> >
> > clarification?
>
> oh, i'm *aware* of the definitions of those flags, but every
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 08:03:42AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
>> >
>> >
>> > i'd always assumed that the type flags of GFP_ATOMIC and GFP_KERNEL
>> > were mutually exclusive when it came to calling kmalloc(), at least
>> > based on everything i'd read. so i'm not sure how to interpret the
> >
> >
> > i'd always assumed that the type flags of GFP_ATOMIC and GFP_KERNEL
> > were mutually exclusive when it came to calling kmalloc(), at least
> > based on everything i'd read. so i'm not sure how to interpret the
> > following:
> >
> > drivers/scsi/aic7xxx_old.c: aic_dev =
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Shan, Guo Wen (Gavin) wrote:
>
> #define GFP_ATOMIC (__GFP_HIGH)
> #define GFP_NOIO(__GFP_WAIT)
> #define GFP_NOFS(__GFP_WAIT | __GFP_IO)
> #define GFP_KERNEL (__GFP_WAIT | __GFP_IO | __GFP_FS)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert P. J. Day
#define GFP_ATOMIC (__GFP_HIGH)
#define GFP_NOIO(__GFP_WAIT)
#define GFP_NOFS(__GFP_WAIT | __GFP_IO)
#define GFP_KERNEL (__GFP_WAIT | __GFP_IO | __GFP_FS)
-Original Message-
From: Robert P. J. Day [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 9:41 PM
i'd always assumed that the type flags of GFP_ATOMIC and GFP_KERNEL
were mutually exclusive when it came to calling kmalloc(), at least
based on everything i'd read. so i'm not sure how to interpret the
following:
drivers/scsi/aic7xxx_old.c: aic_dev = kmalloc(sizeof(struct aic_dev_data),
i'd always assumed that the type flags of GFP_ATOMIC and GFP_KERNEL
were mutually exclusive when it came to calling kmalloc(), at least
based on everything i'd read. so i'm not sure how to interpret the
following:
drivers/scsi/aic7xxx_old.c: aic_dev = kmalloc(sizeof(struct aic_dev_data),
#define GFP_ATOMIC (__GFP_HIGH)
#define GFP_NOIO(__GFP_WAIT)
#define GFP_NOFS(__GFP_WAIT | __GFP_IO)
#define GFP_KERNEL (__GFP_WAIT | __GFP_IO | __GFP_FS)
-Original Message-
From: Robert P. J. Day [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 9:41 PM
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Shan, Guo Wen (Gavin) wrote:
#define GFP_ATOMIC (__GFP_HIGH)
#define GFP_NOIO(__GFP_WAIT)
#define GFP_NOFS(__GFP_WAIT | __GFP_IO)
#define GFP_KERNEL (__GFP_WAIT | __GFP_IO | __GFP_FS)
-Original Message-
From: Robert P. J. Day
i'd always assumed that the type flags of GFP_ATOMIC and GFP_KERNEL
were mutually exclusive when it came to calling kmalloc(), at least
based on everything i'd read. so i'm not sure how to interpret the
following:
drivers/scsi/aic7xxx_old.c: aic_dev = kmalloc(sizeof(struct
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 08:03:42AM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
i'd always assumed that the type flags of GFP_ATOMIC and GFP_KERNEL
were mutually exclusive when it came to calling kmalloc(), at least
based on everything i'd read. so i'm not sure how to interpret the
following:
drivers/scsi/aic7xxx_old.c: aic_dev = kmalloc(sizeof(struct aic_dev_data),
GFP_ATOMIC | GFP_KERNEL);
drivers/message/i2o/device.c: resblk = kmalloc(buflen + 8, GFP_KERNEL |
GFP_ATOMIC);
clarification?
oh, i'm *aware* of the definitions of those flags, but every single
source
32 matches
Mail list logo
